Godfrey settled out of court with Demon (after a key part of Demon's defence was struck down) so nothing binding in terms of judgement took place in court.
Also, different juristictions. Godfrey took place in the UK.
I'm pretty sure that what people class as "1st Generation iPod" actually covers two differently-designed scrollwheels, assuming by 1st Gen iPod we're referring here to the ones with the buttons placed round the scrollwheel.
It may well be that the very first 1st Gen iPods used an optical encoder. However, my late-1st Gen iPod (first of the 20Mb models) definitely has some form of touchpad, as the touch ring does not move.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16738 is the actual link for the story in question.
Mind you, The Inquirer is famed through the industry for the accuracy of its reporting, so you might want to take whatever it says as merely one of many possible outcomes.
You are wrong too. Precedent in the UK is only set by the Court of Appeal or higher - any individual judge is not bound by any other judge's previous ruling, though they do take them into account.
Hence precedent is not set. The way in which it would have been set is for this case to go to judgement, and then that judgement be taken to the Court of Appeal. This has not been done.
One quick clarification: not only does a judge have to make a ruling, but the Court of Appeal has to confirm it before it is a proper "precedent". The word has quite a strict meaning in law, and many people use it in a wider sense than its actual legal interpretation.
The problem with this is that it takes money. Lots and lots of money. Money that Outcast, as a small community-based organisation, simply does not have.
The only way that this would work would be for a full legal team to be prepared to take the case on pro bono, which is fairly unlikely.
It's not the same person. Without referring to his bio page on the shut-down server, I don't know quickly how to prove this, but what you suggest definitely isn't the case.
Slashdot Mirror
I really, really hope they got the cash in advance!
Godfrey settled out of court with Demon (after a key part of Demon's defence was struck down) so nothing binding in terms of judgement took place in court.
Also, different juristictions. Godfrey took place in the UK.
I'm pretty sure that what people class as "1st Generation iPod" actually covers two differently-designed scrollwheels, assuming by 1st Gen iPod we're referring here to the ones with the buttons placed round the scrollwheel.
It may well be that the very first 1st Gen iPods used an optical encoder. However, my late-1st Gen iPod (first of the 20Mb models) definitely has some form of touchpad, as the touch ring does not move.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16738 is the actual link for the story in question.
Mind you, The Inquirer is famed through the industry for the accuracy of its reporting, so you might want to take whatever it says as merely one of many possible outcomes.
Alan.
You are wrong too. Precedent in the UK is only set by the Court of Appeal or higher - any individual judge is not bound by any other judge's previous ruling, though they do take them into account.
Hence precedent is not set. The way in which it would have been set is for this case to go to judgement, and then that judgement be taken to the Court of Appeal. This has not been done.
Alan.
Not the same person, as I mentioned elsewhere.
One quick clarification: not only does a judge have to make a ruling, but the Court of Appeal has to confirm it before it is a proper "precedent". The word has quite a strict meaning in law, and many people use it in a wider sense than its actual legal interpretation.
Alan.
The problem with this is that it takes money. Lots and lots of money. Money that Outcast, as a small community-based organisation, simply does not have.
The only way that this would work would be for a full legal team to be prepared to take the case on pro bono, which is fairly unlikely.
Alan.
It's not the same person. Without referring to his bio page on the shut-down server, I don't know quickly how to prove this, but what you suggest definitely isn't the case.
Alan.